LAWS(SC)-2006-10-108

R K AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On October 31, 2006
R.K.AGRAWAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 8127/2004. The said appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 540/1999, whereby the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent (R.K. Agrawal) had been allowed and directions had been issued to the State to pay to the respondent pension for the period commencing 26th July, 1979 to 22nd July, 1982. According to the State, the respondent was not serving the State Government during that period and, therefore, he is not entitled for pension for the said period.

(2.) The Civil Appeal No. 8128 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent in C.A. No. 8127/2004 questioning the correctness of the judgment of the High Court insofar as the non-grant of interest to the contesting respondent. According to the first respondent Mr. R.K. Agrawal, the High Court has failed to appreciate that the delay caused by the appellants are more than 20 years in the payment of pension and/or pro-rata benefits to the first respondent was without any fault of the first respondent and as such the first respondent was entitled to interest and damages thereon. The first respondent has claimed 18% interest per annum for the non payment.

(3.) This apart, the first respondent herein and the appellant in CA No. 8128/2004, in his writ petition before the High Court, has specifically raised in paragraph 7 for the grant of pro-rata pension admissible to him in terms of Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and in support of said contention, decision nos.5 & 6 thereunder was relied on for the period rendered by him under the Government of Rajasthan. Our attention was also invited to the relevant part of the governing Decision No. 5 and the extract of Decision No. 6 for the sake of enabling this Court to correctly appreciate the import and purport thereof. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce relevant portion of the Govt. Order No. F.1 (48) F.D. (Rules)/68 dated 10.4.1969, Para 4, Sub Para (iii) A: